Given the activity over recent weeks, figured a new thread was needed before somebody gets chided for going off-topic.

The teams have had a month to figure out what they have on the ice.

Buffalo's a no-brainer. Florida's been singing the same tune for a while but Tallon doesn't want to let go of the only pieces that seriously interest other teams. Wouldn't be surprised if Toronto doesn't make a move, nor would I be shocked if the Rangers didn't make some changes if only to shake things up. There are any number of teams who might makes moves given the right opportunity. That said, a lot of teams are close up to the cap so it's not like there's a lot of wriggle-room.

My question is (Would the Canucks be in on anything at this point? Will Gillis bank on the injury excuse and wait for the team to get healthy before making a move, or will he figure that he has to make a move just to break through the log-jam at the top of the division (depending on this week's road trip)?

MG has been pretty consistent in keeping things under wraps. When you hear a lot of rumours about Vancouver I have come to believe they are either media crap or intentional leaks aimed at misdirection. I haven't heard anything for a whole now. Doesn't mean something isn't up, just that my sources are either not talking or are not hearing anything. I would speculate that MG is always looking to improve the club and if a deal makes sense, or not, he would pull the trigger. I just don't know if there are any active or heated discussions.

We need a centre, so too do a lot of teams, so the market would be high. We need a top six, so too do a lot of teams, so the market would be high. We don't have a lot to trade unless we want to part with picks and prospects. And for the first time in a long time we have several prospects to be excited about. I sure hope MG isn't willing to let them go.

We do have depth with goalie prospects but they won't get a big return.

An important asset to have in any trade discussion is cap space/salary absorption. Vancouver isn't blessed with a considerable amount, but management has always found a way to find more as each season unfolds.

I think you could see Tanev go if Stanton turns out to be legit (and not playing in over his head). If he does turn out to be legit, I see him as a slightly more physical version of Tanev - which then makes Tanev more expendable.

Given that Tanev is young, cheap, is pretty dependable with some potential, he may net Gillis something significant as part of a bigger package - again if Stanton turns out to be a Tanev-like type of player.

As for Kane, I would pass on him if I was Gillis. Tantalizing on-ice product but I see a lot of red-flags off the ice.

Wonder if Yzerman would ever part with the likes of Brett Connolly? Sooner or later, Tallon has to let go of one of his younger forwards - Bjugstad, Matthias, Barkov or Shore. He can offer up Goc, Gomez, or Winchester till the cows come home, but there's next to no market and there's only so much ice time to spread around for the youngsters.

I would hate for Gillis to part with any of our top level CHL prospects at this point (Gaunce, Horvat, Shinkaruk, Cassels). I think we need be careful with trading away future picks as well. We have a window of three or four more years where we can rely so heavily on the Sedins, after then, I think doing so would be pushing it and we need two young players to work out in a big way if we are going to pull off any sort of seamless transition.

I would be open to a young player for young player trade though. The problem is, we don't have many young players to consider trading. I wouldn't be too excited about trading Kassian. Jensen probably has little value. Tanev, Corrado and Stanton are all nice young defensemen, but it's not like Bieksa and Hamhuis are getting any younger.

I can't help but think about what Gillis could have gotten for Burrows before his NTC and $4M cap hit kicked in. I like the finger biter, but it was also clear we had major issues at centre and he was one of the few guys we could lose without leaving a gaping long termhole.

Lancer wrote:I think you could see Tanev go if Stanton turns out to be legit (and not playing in over his head). If he does turn out to be legit, I see him as a slightly more physical version of Tanev - which then makes Tanev more expendable.

Given that Tanev is young, cheap, is pretty dependable with some potential, he may net Gillis something significant as part of a bigger package - again if Stanton turns out to be a Tanev-like type of player.

As for Kane, I would pass on him if I was Gillis. Tantalizing on-ice product but I see a lot of red-flags off the ice.

Wonder if Yzerman would ever part with the likes of Brett Connolly? Sooner or later, Tallon has to let go of one of his younger forwards - Bjugstad, Matthias, Barkov or Shore. He can offer up Goc, Gomez, or Winchester till the cows come home, but there's next to no market and there's only so much ice time to spread around for the youngsters.

Tanev for Matthias? That would also open up a roster spot for Corrado.

Lancer wrote:As for Kane, I would pass on him if I was Gillis. Tantalizing on-ice product but I see a lot of red-flags off the ice.

Tallon has to let go of one of his younger forwards - Bjugstad, Matthias, Barkov or Shore. He can offer up Goc, Gomez, or Winchester till the cows come home, but there's next to no market and there's only so much ice time to spread around for the youngsters.

I think if Kane is available it's worth the risk to try to get him, because of his talent alone, plus he'll grow up(mature) eventually.

If he was supreme pro no way in hell does he become available, Kass/Tanev or Jensen/3rd should suffice for a young skilled power forward.

Goc is exactly what we need for our 3rd line center spot, Matthias is good but a lot of Florida fans suggest he's better at wing as he's not that great on faceoff's...but what do they know! ha jk.